After weeks of wrangling, the Paycheck Fairness Act will finally reach the Senate floor today, where it's likely to face strong opposition from Republicans. Democratic supporters, however, are investing quite a bit of energy into the proposal.
Yesterday, for example, the White House organized a conference call on the legislation, and President Obama made a surprise appearance, touting not only his support for the bill, but also explaining its significance.
Mitt Romney, meanwhile, true to form, refuses to take a position on the bill. When we asked the Romney campaign for its stance, a spokesperson said the Republican candidate supports the concept of equal pay for equal work, but despite repeated requests, Romney's aide would not say whether he supports or opposes the proposal.
No Profile in Courage Award for you, gov.
So, does the bill have any chance at all? The last time the Paycheck Fairness Act reached the Senate floor, two years ago, it garnered 58 votes, which, thanks to the way the modern Senate operates, means the bill failed. The chamber's GOP "moderates" -- Scott Brown, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe -- all joined the filibuster that killed the bill.
Two years later, the Democratic majority has shrunk considerably, but hope springs eternal.
On one conference call, the bill's chief sponsor Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) said she's hopeful Republicans will peel away and help break a filibuster, but declined to say whether any GOP votes had been locked down.
"I'm not at liberty to go into that," Mikulski said.
Mikulski will need to find seven Republicans willing to give the bill an up-or-down vote, which appears to be a very tall order given how far the GOP Senate caucus has moved to the right.
For those unfamiliar with the substance behind the legislation, the bill would "enhance the remedies available for victims of gender-based discrimination and require employers to show that wage differences are job-related, not sex-based, and driven by business necessity. The measure would also protect employees from retaliation for sharing salary information, which is important for deterring and challenging discriminatory compensation.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which we discussed with Ledbetter herself last night, was an important step forward when it comes to combating discrimination, but it was also narrowly focused to address a specific problem: giving victims of discrimination access to the courts for legal redress. The Paycheck Fairness Act is a broader measure.
With women still only making 77 cents for every dollar men earn in similar jobs, the question may soon become why so many Republicans, including their presidential candidate, seem indifferent to the problem.
Postscript: As a simple matter of election-year strategy, I have no idea why every Senate Republican doesn't simply vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act and then let the GOP-led House kill it.
Leave a Comment:
"With women still only making 77 cents for every dollar men earn in similar jobs,"
In a sane world, windows all across the land would be opening, and female voices could be heard to shout, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it any more!"
Sadly, we no longer live in a sane world.
If it hits the worse one first
Latino / Hispanic Women only make 53 cents.
And excludes white, asian, and black women.
It is amazing and disturbing that conservatives and Republican lawmakers would find issue with any measure to ensure equal pay for equal work and finally give women their constitutional right to earn as much as men do in the workforce. How is this controversial? Only if the GOP is pandering to the most extreme and radical elements of their base, the kinds of people for which women's rights are anathema and a trip back to the 19th century -- complete with slavery -- would be heaven on earth. Romney's war on women continues, and it is getting even uglier from the right. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
I'm not familiar with that Constitutional right. What article and section?
All Men are Created Equal. It's in our Declaration of Independence. I guess it's arguable since it's not actually in the constitution, but I tend to hold the DOI in high regard. It represents our country's reason for existence and declares our intentions as much as the constitution.
Created equal. Not paid equal. Many external factors come into play when determining compensation packages. Remember, the Constitution enables equal opportunity, not equal outcome. What you're describing is socialism (equal outcome, not equal opportunity).
Dan...then you would agree on the Second amendment then?
Last I checked the Declaration of Independence is not the founding legal document of our country. As such whatever it declares has no legal standing. Or are you going to argue that the Articles of Confederation are as equally as important?
The problem with this bill is the incredible potential it gives for abuse. In a free market the average individual is paid a market rate. This means the individual is paid a rate which is both competitive with other companies and yet is still an amount the company can afford to pay.
This means we are each open to negotiate our own salary so if I negotiate a better deal for myself then someone else is that discrimination or am I just a better negotiator than the other person?
Clearly the other person won't think they were at fault and lawsuits will ensue.
This is an idiotic bill with no true value.
On a side note, I'm loving the rhetoric that is starting to explode as we draw closer to Election Day.
American Taliban. What a bunch of morons. Why is it that the progressive liberal left, which claims to possess an acceptance of all viewpoints, are often the quickest to offend and start with either name calling or race baiting?
No, what you're describing is discrimination that hides behind an ineffective law. By saying "Created Equal" it assumes equal treatment, equal rights, equal results given that all variables are equal. What would your external factors that would create such an unequal pay system be? If so called "socialism" guarantees that someone who performs a job equally as well as another should receive equal pay, I'd say that our pseudo capitalistic Good Ole Boy's Club here in America is a joke rife with cheaters and liars that stack the deck in their own favor.
Horse@!$%# - they dont claim that at all, you're just flat out lying again, as rightwing creeps do all the time, doubtless in reverence to the liar in chief, their nominee
Johan Doh - As a matter of fact I do support our second amendment. And will defend my right to own, carry, and defend myself. Look, you either believe in our constitution or you don't. This cherry picking, and defending parts of it, but mincing words and games to discredit other parts is the BS in this country.
JBoston - I find it sad that the right wing would discredit our Declaration of Independence. Do you guys have no sense of loyalty or patriotism? The Declaration is America's Mission Statement, it states our very reason for existence. To hide behind the fact it isn't law strikes me as typical right wing "we'll do anything to make a buck, ethics mean nothing". Then you go to church on Sunday. God knows better, can't fool him.
The paycheck fairness act is BAD FOR WOMEN! First of all, the US census is what is used to calculate this alleged "pay gap." Here's the problem: The US census doesn't compare Apples to Apples.
These averages are calculated using the whole entire workforce. The problem with that sort of calculation is that men typically take higher paying jobs in engineering and other sciences, while women take more social jobs, such as political sciences or psychology.
In realty, when you compare men and women working the same job, women actually make 8 cents more on the dollar than men do!
The other tragic part about this legislation is that it makes businesses more susceptible to lawsuits by women, which in turn may make them think twice about hiring a woman over a man, despite their qualifications.
Learn the facts. Republicans are in the right here: not democrats!
"The other tragic part about this legislation is that it makes businesses more susceptible to lawsuits by women, which in turn may make them think twice about hiring a woman over a man, despite their qualifications."
So you're suggesting we protect businesses that would break the law and deny women the right to fair pay? And not enact a law because it would create businesses that discriminate against women, thus protecting these businesses even further?
Sorry - bad republican logic! This is the very issue women have with the republican party.
BJensen, so you think that women should be thought of as less capable of doing their job and that's why it's ok for them to be paid less? Because that's the thought process most HR departments have when it comes to pay scales. Women need to prove their capability each and every day, while men can skate by regardless of how capable they are.
And Adam Pensel, I believe Rachel Maddow's staff put together a chart showing profession to profession comparisons of salaries about a month or so ago. And of the top 100 professions, women were paid more than men in only 2 professions, I believe it was. And that was head to head, same job to same job comparisons, not all men vs all women, as you claim. Too bad you didn't do the research before typing in the box.
Actually, it WAS TRMS that did the comparison because it was on her show that she talked about how Republicans don't see the problem at all, so of course they won't vote to change it. I remember it now because I was agreeing with her rationale.
I find it hard to believe that anyone except a Taliban member would be against this bill.
I also find it hard to believe why women would vote for Romney, who won't even comment on the bill... of course, if I were an American Taliban religious nut, I would not comment on it either.
Republicans represent the ideology of the Taliban in America. Think about it, they really do.
you are too far gone to think for yourself. Live free or die
Except if you're a woman, or black, or latino, or gay, or etc etc etc etc. You're all for EQUALITY, except if it guarantees someones equality to you! If you're so sure of your superiority, why are you afraid to compete?
While I'm not surprised that once again the Republicans are against equal rights for women (or any group for that matter), I am kind of shocked that Romney hasn't taken a side on this issue. After all he has been on both sides of every other issue imaginable! Ha! Ha! Ha!
how about equal pay with no "for life paycheck then" if you want equal pay , get real and start cutting the politician's paychecks first , what normal worker gets a full paycheck after their retired or no longer doing their normal 40 hour work week?
Uhg.... what an administrative nightmare. I'm all for equal pay for equal work, but what cost would come with proving it. For example, when you're at the store how often do you see a female show up when the call goes out for help to carry heavy items to a car? I worked with an inventory service once. Guys to the warehouse where boxes needed shifting around to do the inventory, gals to the shelves. There are a lot of jobs where guys get the heavy lifting and girls get a pass. How will employers prove they are not the same jobs even though the job title is the same, and how much will it cost them to do it?
The business would need to structure and document their pay scale taking all factors into account. This includes defining the job requirements.
Pay for an individual would then be set according to this pay scale.
If at any time the individual has an issue, the business would then pull out the plan and explain the rational. Upon discussion of the issue, if it looks like the plan is not fair, then further steps can be taken to make necessary adjustments.
So...why would this be an administrative nightmare?
Girls???
How many of those jobs even give women a job? and if men working in a store do a lot more of the heavy lifting, women do a lot more of soothing and charming customers, at least as important a role with the job.
actually i know several women who work in shipping & receiving. just because you have seen some clutch their pearls and fan their face in response to larger packages doesn't mean that ALL women are like that.
there are also plenty of women who work baggage in the airlines. You are required to be able to toss 100lb bags around for 8+ hours, every day.
wingers commenting on things they know nothing about again
maphi, you describe the requirements that would be placed on every business to fully document every requirement in even more detail, then ask how that isn't a burden?
firefall, you just stated that there are differences in what men and women do - not the same job...... That was my point, thank you.
kady, you say that because "I" have seen 'some clutch their pearls' that doesn't mean that 'ALL women are like that.' I counter that , just because you 'actually know several women who work in shipping and receiving' doesn't doesn't mean that 'ALL women are like that.' Thank you for supporting my point.
Patango, Sorry. If I were a 'lefty' like you I guess I would know everything too just by my choice of perspective. (Though I need to point out that though my children also thought they knew everything when they were younger, they grew out of it.)
Your comment includes too many assumptions based on your own ideologies to be taken seriously. Sorry, it started out well, but finished badly.
Give me a break. This is what job evaluations are for. No one does the same work, everyone is different. The people that do the least amount of work for every company arguably are the executives and I am basing that on years of experience working in upper management in Fortune 500 companies.
Quark - what kind of business doesn't already know what their pay-scale is?
How would you plan on further expansion, make decisions about staffing levels, etc if you didn't know what each position would cost the company.
What would you do, just guess??
Say what you like, but I see the lawsuits and the expense that goes with them, and the piles of documentation created to try to shield businesses from liability. And all simply for an election year campaign ploy - there's no sincerity behind the idea.
Plus, I can't help but see the hypocrisy in the calls for 'equality' but only for the 'good' things. When I see the demands to have women included in selective service registration, protests and lawsuits (brought by women) against the states that have laws favoring women in divorces, and rejection of more favorable accommodation and treatment (for example, on many military installations, female dormitories are better than male dormitories - kitchens, single rooms when males share, etc. - women's bathrooms are more spacious and appealing-which costs more money) THEN I'll believe in the sincerity of the position calling for 'equality.'
As I said, I do believe there should be equal compensation for equal work. I just want to see truly 'equal' treatment - for all - the good and the bad.
By the way, I am not Republican. I am not Democrat. Both parties are simply creations of self-serving career politicians that have usurped our political process and installed themselves as our new nobility. Any one who doesn't recognize that and still subscribes to either party affiliation is simply a tool and an unthinking sheep.
Not that I'm against fair pay; my spouse is in the workforce and I certainly want her to earn her rightful salary but the only effect of this being passed is that the cost of everything we purchase will simply increase to absorb the rise in pay.
So you expect women to subsidize what you buy, by accepting lower pay?
But wouldn't the rise in pay then increase the buying power of the individual?
"the cost of everything we purchase will simply increase to absorb the rise in pay."
Does anyone else think it's weird that this argument never seems to come up when CEO's and other high-level managers get their way-more-than-the-rate-of-inflation annual pay raises, etc.?
Exactly , ceo's , upper management and majority stock holders all cash in for millions , but a living wage for the workers will cause bankruptcy , the gop working class are mindless zombies ...And THEY never want to take a pay cut , but they expect everyone else to
>> As a simple matter of election-year strategy, I have no idea why every Senate Republican doesn't simply vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act and then let the GOP-led House kill it.
That's easy. They are less afraid of a backlash among independent women voters and more terrified of being cast out of the party by the increasingly rabid reactionary wing.
"They are less afraid of a backlash among independent women voters and more terrified of being cast out of the party by the increasingly rabid reactionary wing."
HAHA! HAHAHA! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!! gasp...gasp...sorry, I can't breathe. Was laughing at you way to hard.
Are you seriously calling the right the "reactionary wing"? Are you serious? Merely open your mouth in protest to any of the multiple failings of Messiah Obama and you are likely to be instantly labeled a racist from an individual who claims to advocate for diversity. Consider for a moment that Obamacare was a boondoggle and you are instantly vilified for being a Nazi. Claim that the recent recession was due more to progressive liberal legislation instead of natural market forces and you are assigned the label of "greedy capitalist".
I'm sorry but if you ask me it's not the right which is "rabidly reactionary" but that's just what I'm seeing I guess.
Associate with people who protest the President with signs showing him as a "witch doctor" with a bone through his nose "and you are likely to be instantly labeled a racist"
Support a party that openly associates with skinheads and neo-Nazis (e.g. http://wnep.com/2012/06/04/white-activist-elected-to-luzerne-g-o-p-committee/ or http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/24/11862931-one-of-jesse-kellys-sore-spots?lite or... sadly this list could go on and on) "and you are instantly vilified for being a Nazi"
"Claim that the recent recession was due more to progressive liberal legislation instead of natural market forces and you are assigned the label of" idiot.
FTFY.
So Romney won't even state his opinion on this??? How pathetic. To every woman who has gone through their work history, working harder and harder to try to get the same pay as the good old boys, and second guessing herself and her qualifications...any woman who has left their family on their own for longer and longer hours trying to somehow prove that they are worthy....any woman who quit trying....this should really bring back memories of the "Let's pretend it's not happening and maybe they'll just keep over-achieving for us" CEOs and managers.
I thought Rachel's segment on trying to get a response from Willard's campaign was pretty funny
Wouldn't the fact that women only make 77% of what men make in similar jobs point out that there's a problem needing remedy? Either that or republicans really do believe that women are inferior to men, and deserve to make less.
or maybe they just don't want to pass anther BS law that is loaded up with all kinds of other crap, regulations, red tape, etc..
Laws ALREADY EXIST that guarantee equal pay for equal work. This is nothing more than election year politics, ginning up the base, getting panties in a lather, etc...
Judging from the feedback on this forum it seems to work pretty well.
Yeah, what this county needs is one more law/regulation...
KB in VA, the laws you say already exist that guarantee equal pay are obviously not working if women are making only 77% of what men are making. Your comment seems silly when you think about it.
Silly hey..
So what you are saying is that the laws that are on the books to keep this from happening are not working the answer is to pass another law saying that this should not happen...
Stop, or I'll say stop again...
Why do you think replacing an ineffective law with one that will make employers prove their stance is BS? This country is full of ineffective laws that need replacing. The same thing is happening to older workers. Age discrimination runs rampant in America because republicans kicked the legs out from under the law. Republicans will do ANYTHING to further business interests at the expense of basic human rights. Seems the republicans don't think so much of our constitution when profits are considered. They think the same way of the American people too.
This law adds additional protections in order for the existing laws to function as expected.
For instance, how does a woman even know if she is not getting paid as much as her male co-workers if just by asking, she can be subjected to retaliation. Her co-workers can be retaliated against if they tell her what they make.
you are a poster child for what is wrong in out country. Us vs them, Red vs. Blue.....they are all the same sir..
Liberty in this country has been killed at the hands of Dems and Repubs alike. For every Repub passed law that spits on the Constitution I can show you a Dem law that does the same.
The answer lies in the restoration of individual liberty, and that sir in in direct oppostion to big central government and more laws.
Even if those laws are meant to protect me from the evil doings of other men? The constitution is law, is that too much? If it were not for the evil doings of men, why would we even need laws? I suggest that your finger pointing would be more effective if it were pointed at those that prey on others and create the necessity for protective laws.
It is just to comical to hear a goper try to bring up the subject of Us vs them , especially after their DC leaders brag about undermining america , for no other reason than a dem won an election , after they held power for 8 years
Dennis hit one point directly on the head: Businesses will not simply absorb the increase in their expenses.
The other point at issue is that most of these political pundits don't dig into the "why" aspect of women making less. In many times, women make less because they sacrifice their careers for their families. My wife has a full-time job, but she's making less because she's chosen to take time off for the kids. She has to stay in her current job because she has chosen to make it a priority to be home for the kids after school instead of letting the Boys and Girls club watch our children. As a result, she makes less money. But, again, it's her choice.
I would also argue that women in many of the fortune 500 companies are paid based on their merits; the corporations at the top (I would argue) require HR policies that support merit-based pay instead of "I feel like this" pay. Much of the wage skewing you see are likely perpetrated by small businesses that a) don't know the rules regarding discrimination or b) don't care or c) somewhere in between.
Even if you correct the data for all of those factors - time away from careers, turning down over-time - there is still a difference based solely on gender.
-- blanked due to posting error.
I don't know maphi. I'm pretty certain the wage difference is not based on gender. If that were the case, we'd already see lawsuit after lawsuit on sexual discrimination.
BJensen ... There have already been lawsuit after lawsuit on sexual discrimination.
I'd venture a guess that if the difference were as significant as these polls suggest, the lawsuits would be never-ending until that number came up. Something else is at play here.
Correct BJenson. People are reacting to an aggregate number and jumping to political conclusions. All this bill will do is increase costs and, thus, prices. In my experience, having worked for 4 large banks, I never saw gender based pay discrimination. This is just another election year gimmick.
The lawsuits are never-ending. What isn't never-ending are the funds that pay for those lawsuits. What makes you think working women have that much money to throw around on lawsuits? Even the most earnest ideals driven lawyer needs to make actual money on cases instead of being bankrupted fighting corporate America all the time. And seeing as how the courts have limited class-action cases that's become even harder.
WOW. With more women being left alone to raise children (without childsupport), why would anyone be against this?
Because it's not up to corporations to pay for people's poor decisions.
because the bill has alot of other crap in it, as to all bills...
Read the bill, not the headlines...
What other crap?
I read this article and got to thinking about it within my own past and current work places. I have to say that I have NEVER come across an instance where a woman made less money than a man simply because she was a woman. In fact, out of the 4 management positions above me, 3 of the 4 are women, with the top position held by a woman. I call BS on the so called stats that people like to make up. I am 31 and have seen NUMEROUS "out of 1__— polled _% believe this" studies. In my 31 years, I have also NEVER come across the chance to answer one of these poles. Strange huh. Think maybe these numbers are a little bias themselves??? This world will always be full of bias, heck... I'm bias of what shoes I wear in the morning because they match the color of my suit. That doesn't make one pair worse than the others, it is just what is better suited for that job. At this point... Honey Badger Don't Care.
How would you know what the women are making, if they are not allowed to tell you, and you are not allowed to ask? And if you won't believe polls, or statistics of any kind--and there are lots of statistics to back up the numbers, over many years and many fields and many studies--what will you believe? Your basic point here is that, in your life you have not personally, as far as you know, experienced this problem, so it doesn't exist. Not an intellectually valid position. "It didn't happen to me, so I don't believe it" is no more reasonable than "It happened to me, so it happens to everyone."
If women want to make the same pay as men then they shouldn't expect/want men to pay for dinner out on dates and other expenses men usually pay/incur when being with a women. If that happens then I am for equal pay until then I think men should make more to help cover those additional costs.
Many men don't do that now with women making less. They expect to go dutch, or expect sex in return for a decent date.
This is the GOP message to women: Get back in the kitchen and make us some more sammiches! Remember this when voting in November! The GOP is for rolling back many social advances that have been made. Vote for anybody but Romney!
The post above ^ shows the ignorance of many liberals. That's not what the GOP believes, nor is it what the GOP is doing. Do a little more research, instead of listening to the talking bobbleheads on the idiot box.
Actually Republican state Senator Glenn Grothman said, and I quote, "You could argue that money is more important for men," he said. "I think a guy in their first job, maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious. To attribute everything to a so-called bias in the workplace is just not true.”*
Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-09/politics/31311795_1_wage-gaps-wage-discrimination-daily-beast#ixzz1wvMCJ7qO
But I must be ignorant to have read anything negative in that, right?
You can read anything into that, dependent on your viewpoint. You, in your liberal mindset, can read that it means that men are trying to suppress women so they can feel superior and ensure they are the dominant gender. However, in the real world, men traditionally are the breadwinners (I make more than my wife, for example), but we also tend to work more. It's a social norm (notice, norm... not absolute) for us to work more, longer hours, more dangerous jobs, and make more pay doing it. When you poll most households, you will find that men are the traditional "breadwinners." It doesn't mean we are expecting "sammiches" or anything ignorant like that. And it doesn't mean that we want our wives to make less (Who the frell is stupid enough to want their wife to make less?). It's how things work out. And that comment above can just as easily be speaking of the societal norms instead of some conspiracy-theorist whack-job concept of how the men are trying to oppress the women.
Riiiiiiight. Glad you cleared that up for us. LOL! How much do you charge to get in to your imaginary world? Spin it how you want to. Doesn't change the facts. Money is just as important to women as it is to any man. And considering the fact that there are an increasing number of women doing the jobs that men traditionally have in the past, equal pay is a very big deal. There is no longer very many "traditional jobs" that are gender specific. Women are consistently assuming the role of "bread winners" and it is important that we as a society accept this fact. We, as men, will not lose our masculinity because of equal pay. And any myth about men working longer hours or tougher jobs needs substantiating please. Because I know of a few women right here in my community that would argue against that.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/20/the-richer-sex-how-women-became-the-new-breadwinners.html
For enlightenment. One of a very many articles on this very issue.
Of the five senators who participated in Wednesday’s press conference—Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.)—three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.
So you are saying we really do need this law then?
Where do you get that information from KB? Seriously, I'm curious. If they truly are paying their female staffers less than the male ones, then we have a problem to sort out with them. So, where is your link/citation of source please?
KB's just referring to some carefully spun misinformation (surprised?) that's been pinging around the rw-echo chamber for the last couple of weeks...
http://www.examiner.com/article/report-murray-feinstein-boxer-pay-female-staffers-less-than-male-staffers
As I pointed out to another righty who tried to pollute another thread of this blog with this nonsense (and, please forgive the re-post, but I think it's worth rebutting propaganda as often as necessary):
Where is it written that life is fair ?? It is not written .. It has never been written .. It will never be written .. Why ? .. Because " fair " can NEVER ... EVER be legislated .. no matter how hard people twist & spin ... Life will never be " fair " .. Life will always be what has always been .... It is simply " life " .. and has been since the beginning of time .. and will remain so until the end of time .. It cannot & will not EVER be anything else ..
agreed. And it is this notion that somehow we can regulate/pass laws and ordain this "fairness" that has made us the nation of victims that we are. There is a law to fix every problem (real and perceived). Help us big brother, solve our problems for us. It is far too hard to do ourselves. With every law passed, a bit of liberty dies. We have become a nation of spoon fed slaves.
So the basic principal that women should be paid the same wages for the same job should just be pooh-pooh'd off because life isn't fair? How ridiculous. Using that mentality we would never have invented the wheel, because you should have to carry your load - because life isn't fair.
So the Declaration of Independence - that says: "All Men Are Created Equal" is just a waste of time? Our mission statement as a society means nothing? Cute comment, but pure hogwash. As long as there is inequality, bigotry, liars, cheaters, and ineffective law to protect us from it, I will stand up for the underdog and fight for his right to happiness.
Will we, in fairness, also insist that men and women get roughly the same amount of time to enjoy their golden years in retirement? It doesn't seem fair that men and women have the same retirement age, when men on average die much sooner than women.
After all, pensions and social security are part of the "wage and benefits" package people get, and someone getting $10K a year for ten years is getting a much better deal than a person getting $10K a year for only five. Perhaps with pay fairness, we will also use actuarial analysis to make retirement fair as well.
agreed. Actually, I think we should go even further. let's pass a law that says that men and women should live the same amount of time. It's only fair.
I'm 100% in favor of this. But aren't there laws in place right now that do this? Shouldn't they work on enforcement of current law?
yes, but those laws were passed a while ago. This is an election year. We need new laws to grab a few headlines and make a bit of hay from...
There are important changes that need to be made that allow the current law to be enforced.
The laws as written are ineffective. Otherwise why do women continue to make only 77% of what men make? This is meant to strengthen them. Age discrimination is rampant in America also, there is no system of follow up. Age discrimination happens with impunity.
I like it when women are well paid, but it's none of the government's business. Everyone has a right to not buy things that cost more than they feel like paying—including an employee's time.
Are you saying then that child labor should be legal? Perhaps slavery?
Rachel, Ask the Republican Congresswomen who have achieved pay equity by being elected why they are denying it to all other American women. Same question can be asked about health care. I am amazed as a Canadian that your citizens fail to see that Unions provide equal pay for equal work through collective bargaining. You do a great job..keep up the good work..but go after those Republican women and ask them how they explain themselves to their daughters....SAH
It is curious that all of the posters here squealing like pigs stuck under a gate appear to be male.
I assume you all use female attorneys and doctors, because you can pay 77% less for the same service?
As long as women are split the way they are, the men will always be on top.
This is a comment on a slightly related topic - Unions vs. Non-Union. Ed called states without Unions "Right to work" states. That term is total BULL!!
We have no right to work - we have the "right" to get fired for no reason, to get lousy pay and fear for our job security on a daily basis. "Right to work" would mean that companies are required to hire you or the government will give you a job or place you in a job position. None of that is true. There is no "Right to Work" in states without unions. "Right to randomly fire" or simply "Right to Fire" would be a more accurate term.
Please stop using "Right to work" - it is a right-wing lie.
They're "Right to make eight dollar an hour" states. Collective bargaining is the best tool the middle and working classes have to maintain their lifestyles. Even if you are in a non-union job your pay is affected by what the unions are paid. Right to work is just another republican attempt to make the rich richer at the expense of the lower classes.